dismissed EB-1A Case: Wine And Spirits

(b)(6)
DATE: MA1171013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servic e ~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Not}ce of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
-----~---~~~----- - - ·~~ ~- · -
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be rejected. Ifthe petition had been properly filed, the appeal would be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a wine and spirits specialist and enologist. The director determined 
that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit 
extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was electronically submitted to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services on December 15,2011. Part 1 of the Form I-140 identifies 
as the petitioner. In Part 8 ofForm I-140, under "Petitioner's Signature," counsel signed 
and certified the petition electronically. Form I-140 was not signed by the petitioner, as required by 
regulation, but instead by the petitioner's attorney. The only signatures on the form submitted at 
filing are those of counsel. The regulations do not permit an individual who is not the petitioner to 
sign Form I-140. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a) provides, in part: 
Filing. (1) Preparation and submission. Every benefit request or other document submitted 
to DHS must be executed and filed in accordance with the form instructions, 
notwithstanding any provision of 8 CFR chapter 1 to the contrary, and such instructions are 
incorporated into the regulations requiring its submission .... 
(2) Signature. An applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request. However, a 
parent or legal guardian may sign for a person who is less than 14 years old. A legal 
guardian may sign for a mentally incompetent person. By signing the benefit request, the 
applicant or petitioner, or parent or guardian certifies under penalty of petjury that the 
benefit request, and all evidence submitted with it, either at the time of filing or thereafter, is 
true and correct. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, an acceptable signature on a 
benefit request that is being filed with the USCIS is one that is either handwritten or, for 
applications or 
petitions filed electronically as permitted by the instructions to the form, in 
electronic format. 
Form I-140 Instructions state: 
If the petitioner is an individual, then that individual, or that individual's legal guardian if he 
or she is incompetent or under 14 years of age, must personally sign the petition. If the 
petitioner is a corporation or other legal entity, only an individual who is an officer or 
employee of the entity who has knowledge of the facts alleged in the petition, and who has 
authority to sign documents on behalf ofthe entity, may sign the petition. 
There is no regulatory provision that waives the signature requirement for a petitioner to designate 
an attorney or accredited representative to sign the petition on behalf of the petitioner. In this 
instance, the petition was not properly filed on December 15, 2011 because the petitioner had not 
signed the petition. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i), a benefit request which 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
is not signed must be rejected. In addition, a benefit request which is rejected will not retain a filing 
date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(iii). While the service center did not reject the initial filing as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i), the AAO is not bound to follow the contradictory 
decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 
282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La.), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i) is binding on USCIS employees in their administration 
of the Act, and US CIS employees do not have the authority to ignore it. An agency is not entitled 
to deference if it fails to follow its own regulations. See, e.g. Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) 
(Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own 
procedures); US. v. Heffner, 420 F.2d 809, (CA 4 1969) (Government agency must scrupulously 
observe rules or procedures which it has established and when it fails to do so its action cannot 
stand and courts will strike it down); Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 613 F.2d 1120 (C.A.D.C.,1979) (An agency is bound by its own 
regulations); Reuters Ltd. v. F. C. C., 781 F.2d 946, (C.A.D.C.,1986) (An agency must adhere to its 
own rules and regulations; ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, 
cannot be sanctioned). 
On September 17, 2012, the petitioner submitted a new and updated Form I-140 signed by him in 
response to the director's request for evidence. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971 ). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a 
new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). In addition, a petitioner 
may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requirements. !d. at 176. That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that 
come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. 
Because the underlying petition was not submitted with the petitioner's signature at the time of 
filing and should have been rejected without retaining a filing date, further action on the petition 
cannot be pursued, and the appeal must be rejected. 
If the petition had been properly filed, the appeal would be dismissed. Congress set a very high 
benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner 
demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, 
internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten 
categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that the petitioner's evidence had met the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), and (viii), but that the petitioner had failed 
to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets three additional regulatory categories of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (ix) and that the director's final merits determination was in 
error. The AAO concurs with counsel that the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page4 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, however, does not relieve the petitioner from 
satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements required by the statute and regulations. Therefore, if 
the statute and regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit that 
evidence. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). The documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, and that he 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In most 
administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). 
The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. at 376. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's determination that the petitioner 
has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, while the AAO 
affirms the director's finding that the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language of the judge of the work of others criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the AAO 
withdraws the director's findings that the petitioner's evidence meets the published material about the 
alien criterion and the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and 
(viii). Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he satisfies the antecedent regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. Further, as will be explained in the AAO's final merits 
determination, the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any ofthe following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized 
that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability'' 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the 
court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that 
while US CIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to 
meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits 
determination." ld. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, ''the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." ld. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" 
visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
ld. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. 
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's final merits determination. Counsel points to Buletini v. 
INS, 860 F. Supp. 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994) for the proposition that "once a petitioner presents 
credible evidence to satisfy three of the regulatory criteria, the petitioner has demonstrated by a 
preponderance of evidence, eligibility for the classification sought." Counsel also expresses concern 
that the court did not explain how USCIS should conduct a final merits determination. In addition, 
counsel notes that the Kazarian court "never reached the issue of how the second step in the analysis 
should be conducted." 
Counsel's assertions are not persuasive. First, counsel relies on Buletini and other earlier court 
decisions for the proposition that submission of evidence under three criteria alone is sufficient to 
establish eligibility. Notably, the court in Buletini did not reject the concept of evaluating the 
quality of the evidence at any time. Specifically, the court in Buletini acknowledged that "the 
examiner must evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine 
if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. The court continued: 
Once it is established that the alien's evidence is sufficient to meet three of the criteria 
listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the alien must be deemed to have extraordinary ability 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page7 
unless the INS sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its finding that the alien, 
despite having satisfied the criteria, does not meet the extraordinary ability standard. 
!d. (Emphasis added.) As is clear from the italicized language, the Buletini court considered the 
possibility that an alien can submit evidence satisfying three criteria and still not meet the extraordinary 
ability standard provided legacy INS explains its reasoning. 
Second, the Kazarian court did, in fact, provide two examples of how evidence might be considered 
under a final merits determination. For example, the court accepted that the AAO's analysis of the 
strictly internal nature of the alien's judging experience "might be relevant to a final merits 
determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. In addition, the court accepted that whether an 
author's articles have garnered citations in the field "might be relevant to the final merits 
determination of whether a petitioner is at the very top of his or her field of endeavor." The 
Kazarian court acknowledged users' concerns and expressly stated that they were legitimate 
concerns but should have been addressed separately after counting the evidence. 
The final merits discussion that appears in the Kazarian decision is a necessary corollary to the 
majority's discussion of how USers should consider evidence under the regulatory criteria. In 
other words, the court's conclusion that users cannot raise certain concerns when counting the 
evidence is predicated on the understanding that users can do so at a later stage. To apply only 
half of the court's procedure would effectively negate USeiS' ability to consider the quality of the 
evidence at any stage. Such an outcome is untenable and contradicts the understanding in Buletini 
that the quality of the evidence is relevant and would undermine the statutory standard of national 
or international acclaim. Notably, as stated above, the Kazarian court cited Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
Supp. 2d at 918 for the proposition that the classification is extremely restrictive. Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1120. 
For the reasons discussed above, the AAO considers the final merits determination step discussed in 
Kazarian not only persuasive but necessary to understanding the court's decision as a whole. 
Significantly, a recent federal court decision has acknowledged that the Kazarian court described a 
two-step procedure. Rijal v. USCIS, 2011 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th eir. 2012). 
In this matter, the AAO will apply the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefore, the AAO has not considered whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
1. A certificate from the 
stating: 
-2. A certificate from the 
stating: 
3. A certificate from the 
stating: 
4. A January 21 , certificate from "awarded to 
for its active participation in developing the Russian market"; 
5. A gold medal and a certificate from the 
- - - - - - ~-"--!'-''"='-'==-"'==----- stating: 
produced by the 
distributed by 
6. A certificate from a Russian website at focused on 
stating: "For participating in the award 
is awarded to in the nomination for 
(emphasis added); 
7. A trop4Y and a certificate from the President of stating that 
_ received an for Quality in Customer 
Satisfaction, Leadershi , Innovation and Results according the guidelines established by 
, and 
8. An October 2011 certificate stating: ' is a participant of the 
The preceding awards (items 1 - 8) were received by and the wine or 
champagne products that the company distributes, not the petitioner himself. In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a September 6, 2012 letter from 
Chief Financial Officer, stating that the petitioner "is the Founder of 
and that "[h]e has made, and continues to make, all of the important decisions of the company since 
1995." The September 6, 2012 letter from Ms. consists of three pages stapled together. The 
second page is completely blank and the font size on page one of Ms. s letter is significantly 
larger than the font size on page three of her letter indicating that her original letter may have been 
altered, It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's 
proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. /d. 
Counsel asserts that Ms. s comments demonstrate the above awards (items 1 - 8) are 
attributable to the petitioner. Counsel's assertion is not persuasive. For instance, regarding the 
competition awards (items 1 - 3), the petitioner submitted information from 
the monthly newspaper indicating that the winning wines and spirits are chosen 
based on blind "tastings that take place in the com]:Jetition." As there is no evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner was the maker of 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
the AAO cannot conclude the 
awards for taste are attributable to him. Instead, the awards are attributable to 
and the The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires evidence of "the 
alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, not his company or its 
products receipt of the awards. It cannot suffice that the petitioner was part of a wine and spirits 
distribution company that shared collective recognition. 
With further regard to items 1 - 3, the petitioner submitted material in entitled 
~ 
entitled " 
The etitioner also submitted promotional material for the competition 
is pleased to present: 
In addition, the petitioner submitted general information 
about the competition from the website of . publisher 
In regard to item 4, the petitioner submitted information 
about 
Regarding item 5, the petitioner submitted information about the 
from the 
from its own website. 
website at 
A competition may be open to entrants from throughout a 
particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that a specific award 
from the competition is "nationally or internationally recognized." The self-serving nature of the 
preceding information from its publisher, and the L 
_ website is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See 
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO 
did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). 
With regard to item 6, the petitioner submitted results for the 
from the website. The submitted results state: 
won by .. . . " [Emphasis added.] As is not listed 
on the website as having won the it appears the 
petitioner's company only received a "nomination for as indicated on the 
certificate from (item 6). On appeal, counsel comments on win of the 
but the AAO must look to the plain 
language of the documents submitted by the petitioner and not to subsequent statements of counsel. 
See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 185. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires evidence of receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized "prizes or awards," not receipt of a nomination. Earning a "nomination" for 
of the does not equate to receipt of a prize or an award. Regardless, the 
self-serving nature of the information submitted from the website is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that s honor is a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the field. As previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. 
Regarding item 7, the petitioner submitted an April 2004 article in entitled 
presented with the ~ 
evidence showing the specific distribution of 
cannot conclude that coverage in the publication 
" There 
is no circulation 
magazine. Accordingly, the AAO 
Is indicative of national or international 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
recognition in the petitioner's field of endeavor. The submitted evidence fails to demonstrate that 
_ award is a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In regard to item 8, there is no evidence showing that this certificate equates to a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award, rather than an acknowledgment of 
participation in the 
With regard to items 1 - 8, as previously discussed, the awards were received by 
and the wine or champagne products that the company distributes, not the petitioner 
himself. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit objective evidence demonstrating the national or 
international recognition of the awards. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires the petitioner's receipt of more than one prize or award and that 
the prizes and awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor. It is the 
petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that items 1 - 8 were recognized beyond the presenting organizations at a level 
commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to 
be abandoned. Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs 
claims found to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. In 
general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a February 2004 article in the 
entitled' 
section of 
The article is about the author's 
trip to not the petitioner. The petitioner is only briefly mentio~fed in 
one sentence. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the 
published material be "about the alien ... relating to the alien's work in the field." Thus, an article that 
mentions the petitioner but is "about" someone or something else cannot qualify under the plain 
(b)(6)
------"'"'-·~""'·"'1 '·'-'"'" ""'· "''"-•--tlil_'_'""'' -•-lfl'll!.,.,:.s-·~~~-'-''""' - !'lii!I'..,.Ji.,.l.-ll! ____ ..,'ti"""--~ -~·--~~~- --....... --·· --~- - .. -··- .. -·----- --
Page 11 
language ofthis regulation. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 11 CV 8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 at *1, 
*9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012); also see generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 
*1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show or a character within a 
show are not about the performer). In addition, the petitioner submitted information about 
from its website and media kit. As previously discussed, USCIS need not rely 
on self-promotional material. There is no objective documentary evidence showing that the 
magazine is a major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The etitioner submitted an English language translation of an interview of him that was broadcasted 
on on August 5, 2009. The "Summary translation" of the 
radio program transcript was not a full translation as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) which requires that any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Further, the summary translation 
indicates that the interview was about coffee and tea consumption practices in the Middle East and 
Italy, not the petitioner and his work in the field. In addition, the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires "published material about the alien .. . relating to the alien's work in the field" 
including "the title, date and author of the material." A radio program interview featuring the 
petitioner does not meet these requirements. The petitioner also submitted information about the 
station from the station's own website. Once again, USCIS need not rely on 
self-promotional material. 
The petitioner submitted a February 2000 article about himself in entitled [the 
petitioner]" that included an interview of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a March 2000 
article in entitled The latter article is not about the 
petitioner. Instead, the March 2000 article in is about and his 
cham agne. In addition, the petitioner submitted information from stating 
that has a circulation of 31,500. While the petitioner submitted circulation information 
for there is no documentary evidence showing the distribution of the magazine relative to 
other publications to demonstrate that it qualifies as a "major" trade publication or some other form of 
"major'' media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in magazine entitled 
' but date of the article 
was not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. In addition, the 
article is not about the petitioner. Instead, the article is about company's cigar 
marketing strategies. The petitioner also submitted information about from its media 
kit. As previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. There is no objective 
documentary evidence showing that is a major trade publication or some other form 
of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article about himself in the Summer 2010 issue of magazme 
entitled The petitioner also submitted information about from its 
media kit stating 'that the magazine has 50,000 readers. Once again, USCIS need not rely on self­
promotional material. There is no objective evidence showing the distribution of relative to 
(b)(6)
---·---,.··-···· -- ~-~------------------------~=~--- -------- .. 
Page 12 
other publications to demonstrate that the magazine qualifies as a major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an April 2004 article in entitled 
but the author of the article was not 
identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, 
there is no evidence showing that is a major trade publication or some other form of 
major media. 
The petitioner submitted a ten-sentence entry about himself on page 90 of the "First Edition" of 
but the author of the petitioner's entry is not specifically 
identified. The AAO notes that this business directory includes similar entries for "approximately 
600" other Russian businesspersons. In addition, there is no objective evidence showing the 
distribution of relative to other publications to demonstrate that it 
qualifies as a major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a brief entry listing his achievements that was posted at on 
May 2, 1010, but the author of the material was not identified as required by the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. The petitioner also submitted information about from its own 
website. As previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. There is no 
objective readership information showing that this website is a major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a June 2000 article about himself in magazine 
entitled ~ The petitioner also 
submitted a document entitled [the 
petitioner]" 
prepared by Mr. The submitted document is a compilation of 
information about four publications and 
. purportedly retrieved from a website with Russian 
language content. There is no indication that _ are 
one and the same
. Rather than submitting actual screenshots from the source website accompanied 
by certified English language translations, the petitioner appears to have pieced together 
information from Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required 
by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) 
provides that the non-existence or unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. In this instance, there is no objective documentary evidence showing the distribution of 
relative to other publications in the field to demonstrate that the magazine 
qualifies as a major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a 2000 article in entitled 
but the author of the article was not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition, the petitioner is only briefly mentioned in one sentence of the 
article. Further, as previously discussed, the petitioner submitted the document entitled ' 
[the petitioner]" that includes information 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
about purportedly retrieved from Rather than submitting 
screenshots containing information about that originated directly from 
----~-- _ the petitioner instead submitted the information compilation prepared by 
Mr. . Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. The submitted compilation fails to demonstrate that qualifies as a major trade 
publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a July 2002 article about himself in entitled "[The petitioner]: 
The petitioner also submitted an August 2002 article about himself 
in entitled "[The petitioner]: _ Once again, 
rather than submitting screenshots containing information about that 
originated directly from the petitioner instead submitted the information 
compilation prepared by Mr. As previously discussed, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. !d. The submitted compilation fails to demonstrate that 
qualify as major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article in entitled but the date 
of the article was not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition, there is no circulation evidence showing that 
qualifies as a major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating: 
President of the of Russia, 
[The petitioner], a recognized authority in the wine industry, has often been invited and served 
as jury at various wine-related competitions. [The petitioner] served as a jury at one of the 
latest bartender competitions, which was held in 
2011 was held as part of the The competition was held under the 
patronage ofthe consumer market administration of the The best 
bartenders partici ated in the competition. They came from the cities of 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
stating: 
President of the 
Every year, conducts an all-Russian competition for the title 
participated by the Association members from all over Russia. 
The winners take part in the international [The petitioner] has more 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
than once been a jury member at such contests; he has also sponsored intermediate and final 
rounds of the competitions. 
The above evidence satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director's decision determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it 
rises to the level of original business-related contributions "of major significance in the field." The 
phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. 
Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 
343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003) . 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "was the first to bring 
' The petitioner submitted a letter from 
to the 
Marketing Officer, 
Economic Section, stating: 
The is delighted to have this opportunity to extend its gratitude to 
[the etitioner], an extraordinary Enologist, for his huge contribution to the distribution of 
The _ owned by [the petitioner] was one of the first companies to 
import wine from He, personally, traveled along the winemaking 
routes in and made · the first contract that was crucial to introducing our wines 
to Russian market. It was the produce of which is 
still being sold in retail and presented in 
In became a partner of the largest 
* * * 
According to the data provided by the Customs, 
petitioner], ranked to the 
the Russian market. 
* * * 
producer , 
founded and leaded by [the 
wine to 
The company is the exclusive representative of the unique South African 
liqueur in Russia. 
(b)(6)
·-· ·- $1)l) .. ii. )i!'l ·--..................... ltk .... l -·-·-UWOW:M!Ii ____ ----.----&· .. ........,........, . ~..- -· ~- - ~~---
Page 15 
Mr. states that _ "was one of the first companies to import wine from 
' but he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work has 
significantly impacted the alcohol distribution industry or otherwise constitutes original business­
related contributions of "major significance" in the field. While the petitioner engaged wine and 
liquor suppliers in to import their products through his distribution company, there is 
no evidence demonstrating that his ability to market products in Russia constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, it demonstrates only that the petitioner runs 
a successful import business. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited 
to a single company or its wine and liquor suppliers. Further, with regard to being 
the exclusive representative of in Russia, the AAO cannot conclude that every importer 
who holds exclusive rights to distribute a foreign supplier's products in a particular country has 
automatically demonstrated original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted an article about himself in the Summer 2010 issue of magazine 
entitled ' ' In the article, the petitioner answers multiple questions posed by the 
author. The author states that the petitioner "is an exclusive supplier of wines to the 
Russian market," but the article fails to explain how the petitioner's original work was majorly 
significant to the field. In addition, the petitioner submitted an article in . 
entitled ' The article discusses a trip organized by that brought a delegation 
from Russia to the to visit its wine making regions. In the article, the 
petitioner recounts details from the trip and provides general information about s wine 
industry. While the petitioner's company helped foster relationships with 
winemakers, there is no documentary evidence showing that his work rises to the level of original 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The preceding two articles in 
are not sufficient to establish that the petitioner's work has been 
of major significance to the field. 
Counsel also asserts that the petitioner "was key in introducing 
Market." The petitioner submitted a letter from Head of 
Office in Russia, stating: 
[The petitioner] was a very active part of the team who built the 
the 90s, at the time of 
to the Russian 
brand in Russia in 
He contributed to the "education" of the trade partners explaining what cognac and 
are and how to appreciate it. 
He also participated to the buildup of 
distribution was taken over b 
distribution network, until the time when 
Mr. comments that the petitioner was "part of the team who built the rand in 
Russia" in the 1990s, but Mr. fails to explain how the petitioner's work was both original 
and majorly significant to the field. 
The petitioner submitted a February 2000 article about himself in entitled ' [the 
petitioner]" that included an interview of the petitioner. In the article, the petitioner states: 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
I was facing a dilemma: to go to the USA to study there for the sake of the new supermarket 
system project, or to accept s proposal to join his company in order to be 
engaged in selling I decided to 
collaborate with We worked together for about 2 years. Our team, which 
consisted of 5 persons, traveled all around the country. We visited all the clubs and 
restaurants. Not a single bottle of cognac was left uncorked in the bars. 
* * * 
We worked hard and reached our goal: became popular. Our joint project with 
was selling a combined assortment of I was 
supposed to head the new structure, while which had been collaborating with 
for more than 1.5 years, would do retail sales. We gave the right to distribute 
in boxes, but despite our expectations, gave the exclusive right to another 
company, not 
While the petitioner recounts his experience selling _ cognac in the preceding 
article, there is no documentary evidence showing that his work developing customers for the brand 
has substantially impacted the industry or otherwise constitutes an original artistic contribution of 
major significance in the field. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the 
field" rather than limited to a distribution company and its supplier. 
Counsel further states that the petitioner "created the revolutionary 
The petitioner submitted a June 2000 article about himself in 
magazine entitled The 
article discusses ' to expand its variety of 
wines. develop retail networks, and undertake a production project. While the article discusses 
marketing campaign, there is no evidence of the plan's impact beyond the 
petitioner's company. The article does not provide specific examples of how the plan impacted the 
field at a level indicative of original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
The etitioner also submitted a 2000 article in 
that states: 
entitled 
Modem winemaking has a global nature. Countries previously not known as wine makers 
are entering the world market. In order to familiarize the Russians with the "new wine 
geography," the' company has launched a project named 
[The petitioner], president of this company, the author of this idea, invited our Almanac to 
participate in the project. Here is the idea. A group of specialists from 
will be visiting wineries in Europe, Asia, 
Africa, North and South America, Australia, tasting and selecting the wines that' will 
then be importing to Russia. 
(b)(6)
~""lf!f"''·----"'·"'''"~'""'·~,_-,~ ·~--· .__... .... , ..,, _,,.... __ . d...,,...,,...._..,."...,..'""'"""l!f!IN~I...,iU!-lll_,. ___ • .,_.l!!""'"_.,_"-""-- -·- -n-•· : .,..:1!1•-nw---------~--~---- ~- ·----- · -· · ........................... -.. 
Page 17 
To cover this ambitious project, we are planning to create a permanent column in our 
almanac, " Today, we are telling you about the expedition to 
Burgundy, France, that took place last July. 
The team included em loyees as well as _ " president of the 
and vice editor-in-chief of the " member of 
the More than 350 wines were tasted in the framework of 
the expedition, 60 of them were selected for the Russian market. 
While the author notes that the petitioner organized a project to visit wineries in Europe, Asia, 
Africa, North and South America, and Australia that included the Editor-in-Chief of 
and the President of the the author fails to provide specific 
examples regarding how the collaborative project significantly impacted the field or otherwise 
equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
established that importing various foreign wines to Russia rises to the level of original business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, counsel asserts that the petitioner "brought the California wines from and 
to the Russian market." The petitioner submitted a letter from 
Russian Office, stating: 
[The petitioner's] name is associated with the Russian market's 
exclusive contracts with two 
most distinguished (the farm was 
founded in and the first winery built in (founded in 
Thanks to owned by [the petitioner], the wines of those wineries were 
presented in Russian store chains, in specialized boutiques and on the restaurant wine cards. 
Led by [the petitioner], participated in extensive wines tastings from 
California farms. The event was organized by the in cooperation 
with the residence at the -on October 27, 2011. 
* * * 
In 2006, [the petitioner] was invited by the to visit California 
wineries. The trip resulted in an exclusive contract of importing the wines produced by the 
I can state without hesitation that [the petitioner] is one of the top authorities in Russia's 
wine industry. He is our ambassador of many brands represented in Russia. His recent visit 
to the has resulted in signing of contracts with various wineries, such as 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
As [the petitioner] is the chief contact for promoting Californian wines in Russia. Recently, 
in 2011 he visited the California wineries mentioned above to share his valuable expertise 
and to sign new exclusive contacts for supplying wine to Russia. 
Ms. states that has contracts to import wine from various 
California wineries, she does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work 
has significantly impacted the wine distribution industry or otherwise equates to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. While the petitioner engaged wine suppliers in 
California to import their products through his distribution company, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that his ability to market wines in Russia constitutes original business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. As previously discussed, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to a single company or its wine suppliers. 
Counsel also asserts that the petitioner "introduced biodynamic wines to the Russian market." The 
petitioner submitted a letter from Managing Partner of 
Massachusetts, stating: 
One of the academic institutions that we work with is the 
which is a joint project devised by major Russian and international business 
leaders. . . . [The petitioner], the owner of a renowned ' was of one of the 
first graduates of the program and is an honored alumnus of the program. [The petitioner] 
continues to be involved in today's development of the program .... He 
has led his company to become a leading distributor of the world's most 
remarkable brands of wines and liquors. 
As a leading venture capital firms in the emerging field of sustainability/clean technology, 
attention was drawn by [the petitioner's] innovative skills as a pioneer of 
introducing Biodynamic wines into the Russian market. 
The following is taken from Wikipedia and explains Biodynamic wines. These are wines 
made using the principles of biodynamic agriculture. The practice of biodynamics in 
viticulture (grape growing) has become popular in recent years in several growing regions, 
including France, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Germany, Australia, Chile, South Africa, 
Canada, and the United States. A number of very high-end, high-profile commercial 
growers have converted recently to biodynamic practices. . . . Currently, for a wine to be 
labeled "biodynamic" it has to meet the stringent standards laid down by the Demeter 
Association, which is an internationally recognized certifying body. 
Like biodynamic agriculture in general, biodynamic viticulture stems from the ideas and 
suggestions of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), who gave his now famous Agriculture Course in 
1924, predating most of the organic movement. 
* * * 
Biodynamic wines are the latest trend in the industry worldwide, and it is no surprise that 
[the petitioner] is one of the first to be promoting it. He is already known for bringing wines 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
from South Africa to Russia, as well as being the exclusive distributor of numerous French 
and other European wines across Russia. It is yet another achievement that shows [the 
petitioner's] contribution to the wine industry ofRussia is significant. 
Mr. asserts that the petitioner demonstrated "innovative skills as a pioneer of introducing 
Biodynamic wines into the Russian market." The AAO notes that having a diverse or unique skill 
set is not a business-related contribution of major significance. Rather, the record must be supported 
by evidence that the petitioner has already used his unique skills to impact the field at a significant 
level in an original way. Furthermore, assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification 
sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue 
properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment labor 
certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 
(Comm'r 1998). While Mr. comments that the petitioner was "one of the first to be 
promoting" the biodynamic wine concept in Russia, he fails to provide specific examples ofhow the 
industry has been significantly influenced by the petitioner's work. The lack of any specific 
information offers no evidence of original business-related contributions of major significance in 
the field. For instance, there is no empirical evidence showing that consumption of biodynamic 
wine in Russia increased substantially as a result of the petitioner's original work or that his 
promotional strategies otherwise equate to original business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the 
content of the references' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that 
one would expect of a wine and spirits specialist and enologist who has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, substantially impacted his field, or has otherwise 
risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to 
be abandoned. Sepulveda,.401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's fmding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Head oi . _ m 
Russia, stating that the petitioner "was a very 
active part of the team who built the brand 
in Russia in the 90s" and that the petitioner participated in the "buildup of distribution 
network, until the time when distribution was taken over by .J' The petitioner, however, 
failed to submit documentary evidence showing that and have distinguished 
reputations. In addition, the petitioner has not established that he performed in a leading or critical 
role for In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a 
critical role is one in which the alien is responsible for the success or standing of the organization. The 
petitioner failed to submit organizational charts or similar documentary evidence to demonstrate where 
his position fit within the overall hierarchy of The letter from Mr. 
fails to explain how the petitioner's role was leading relative to that of companies' other salespersons 
and distributors, let alone the top officers or executives who ran Further, the 
submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner was responsible for the preceding companies' 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of"critical role." While the petitioner may 
have performed admirably as part of the team who worked to distribute the brand in 
Russia, there is no evidence showing that his role as a team member was leading or critical to the 
preceding companies as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating: 
President of the 
[The petitioner] . . . is not only a member of he also was behind the creation of the 
association as one of it masterminds. Since then, [the petitioner] has been taking an active part 
in the activities of the Association as to attracting new members, training and 
revalidating. 
* * * 
Besides the educational programs, workshops, master classes, tasting and presentations that 
[the petitioner] has held for he has organized and sponsored trips to the world 
wine regions. 
The petitioner has provided no objective documentary evidence showing that the 
has a distinguished reputation. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit an 
organizational chart or similar documentary evidence to demonstrate where his role fit within the 
overall hierarchy of the The letter from Mr. fails to explain 
how the petitioner's role was leading relative to that of the other members who helped create the 
association, let alone the top officers who run the association. Further, the submitted evidence does 
not establish that the petitioner was responsible for the s success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate that his role for the was leading or critical. 
(b)(6)
_________ , ________________________________________________________________________ ___ 
Page 21 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating: 
[The petitioner] is not only a member of the 
President of the 
very active role in organizing numerous important events. 
but he also plays a 
The most vital involvement is [the petitioner's] assistance in organizing competitions and 
master classes. In particular, [the petitioner] assisted the to organizea 
master class on the , L liqueur at the educational center. 
The record contains no objective documentary evidence showing that the 
has a distinguished reputation. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit an organizational 
chart or similar documentary evidence to demonstrate where his role fit within the overall hierarchy of 
the The letter from Mr. fails to explain how the petitioner's 
role was leading relative to that of the other members who helped create the association, let alone the 
top officers who run the association. Further, while the petitioner assisted the 
in organizing a master class for Amarula liqueur, the submitted evidence does not 
establish that the petitioner was responsible for the s success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate that his role for the was leading or critical. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
(Russia), stating: 
President of the 
[The petitioner] is an honorary member of the 
created in 1999 in Russia under the auspices of the 
* * * 
Supporting the from the day of its foundation, [the 
petitioner] took an active part in creating the statutes and structure of the and attracting 
new members to the - · · 
* * * 
He has taken an active part in creating training programs for restauranteurs, hoteliers, 
bartenders, sommeliers, for their education and further training, as well as in creating the 
Professional Standards and the project named ' 
created by with support from the 
The record contains no objective documentary evidence showing that the 
has a distinguished reputation. Further, while Mr. states that the 
petitioner is an honorary member of the the petitioner failed 
to submit an organizational chart or similar documentary evidence to demonstrate where his position fit 
within the overall hierarchy of the The letter from Mr. 
fails to explain how the petitioner's role was leading relative to that of the other honorary 
(b)(6)
Page 22 
members, let alone the top officers who run the organization. In addition, the submitted evidence does 
not establish that the petitioner was responsible for the 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "critical role." Accordingly, the 
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his role for the was 
leading or critical. 
The AAO acknowledges that the petitioner submitted evidence indicating that he has performed in a 
leading or critical role for and that his company has a distinguished reputation. The 
AAO notes, however, that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
requires evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished 
"organizations or establishments" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When 
a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it 
states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." 
Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular 
or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 
(D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertojf, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. 
Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree 
or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Accordingly, demonstrating a leading or critical role for only 
a single distinguished organization, does not meet the plain language requirements 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted tax returns indicating that he earned in 11,386,372 RUB in 2008, 
14,047,475 RUB in 2009, 12,588,525 RUB in 2010, and 19,258,457 RUB in 2011 as Chief 
Executive Officer and Owner of The petitioner also submitted 
the following: 
1. 2010 salary information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for "Agriculture and 
Food Scientists" reflecting a median annual wage of $58,540; 
2. A 2011 Salary Survey Report in Wine Business Magazine indicating that the median 
salary for an enologist ranges from $45,760 to $50,387 depending on the size of the 
vineyard; 
3. 2011 salary information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for "Chief Executives" 
of "Beer, Wine, and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers" reflecting an 
annual mean wage of $211 ,490; 
4. 2012 salary information from http://simplyhired.com stating that the "Average Alcohol 
Distributor" salary is $36,000; 
(b)(6)
~--------------------------~~~~~~------------------------
Page 23 
5. 2011 salary information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for "Chief Executives" 
in the "Management of Companies and Enterprises" category reflecting a mean annual 
wage of$209,320; 
6. 2011 salary information from the Russian "Federal State Statistics Service" stating that 
"average monthly nominal wage" for Russian workers, across all professions, is 
23,693.10 RUB or 284,317.20RUB annually; 
7. Salary 
information from the Russian "Federal State Statistics Service" for 1995- 2010 
showing "Average Monthly Nominal Accrued Wages of Employees of Organizations by 
Kinds of Economic Activities"; and 
8. 2011 information from the Russian Federal Bureau of State Statistics showing "Average 
Salary based on the field the level of education." 
As Chief Executive Officer and Owner of the petitioner must submit evidence 
showing that he has earned a "high salary" or other "significantly high remuneration" in relation to 
others performing similar work his specific field, not simply relative to "Agriculture and Food 
Scientists" in the United States (item 1 ), enologists in the United States (item 2), alcohol distributors 
in the United States (item 4), Russian workers across all professions (item 6), those working in a 
general economic area (item 7), or those with a similar level of education (item 8). In addition , with 
regard to items 1 - 8, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence showing that he has earned a "high salary'' or other "significantly high 
remuneration" in relation to others in the field, not simply a salary that is above "average" or a salary 
that places him the top half of his field. Average or median salary information is not a proper basis 
for comparison. Instead, the petitioner must submit documentary evidence showing the earnings of 
those in his occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field. See Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th 
Cir. 2011) (finding average salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 
(considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 
444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to 
be abandoned. Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 , at *9. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 ). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
(b)(6)
Page 24 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the present matter, many of 
the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in the 
AAO's preceding discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), 
(viii), and (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(i), the 
AAO notes that the awards were received by ' ' and the wine or champagne 
products that the company distributes, not the petitioner himself. In addition, the petitioner failed to 
submit objective evidence demonstrating the national or international recognition of the awards. The 
petitioner has not established that the awards given to his company and the products it distributes 
are indicative of or consistent with his sustained national acclaim, or a level of expertise indicating 
that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofhis field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), all of 
the material submitted by the petitioner was deficient in at least one of the regulatory requirements 
such as not including a date or an author, not being about the petitioner, and not being shown to 
have been published in "major trade publications" or other "major media." The petitioner has not 
established that the material submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii) is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofhis field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the 
nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the submitted 
evidence is indicative of his recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. The letter from states the petitioner served as a jury at a bartender 
competition held in and that the "best bartenders participated in the 
competition." There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's involvement in this 
regional competition was indicative of national or international acclaim. The petitioner also submitted 
a letter from asserting that the petitioner served as jury member more than once for the 
s all-Russian competition for the title' 
Regarding the self-serving statements from Mr. and Mr. concerning the reputation of 
the preceding competitions, as previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional 
material. The petitioner failed to submit objective evidence documenting the reputation of both the 
bartender competition held in and ' competition. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Moreover, if 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Without 
objective evidence showing the level of notoriety or stature associated with the preceding 
competitions, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner's participation was commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
(b)(6)
Page 25 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(v), the 
petitioner submitted documentation showing that he distributed South African wines in Russia, 
marketed the brand in Russia in the 1990s, created the ' 
marketing campaign, imported California wines to Russia, and promoted Biodynamic wines in the 
Russian market. The petitioner, however, has not established that his contributions are indicative 
of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Demonstrating that the 
petitioner's work was "original" without demonstrating the "major significance" of his business-related 
contributions is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate 
sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as 
shown through extensive documentation) ... " While the petitioner is a successful importer of wine and 
liquor to Russia, there is no indication that his work rises to the level of original contributions of major 
significance in the wine and liquor distribution industry. In this case, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence that the petitioner's original work had major significance in the field, let alone 
an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally acclaimed as extraordinary. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as 
previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he has performed in a leading or critical 
role for more than one organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), 
the petitioner has not established that he has earned a high salary in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that his salary places him among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954; see 
also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x at 713-14; Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 
at 968; Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. at 444-45. The salary evidence submitted by the petitioner is not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim, or a level of expertise indicating that he 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner need not demonstrate 
that there is no one more accomplished than himself to qualify for the classification sought; however, 
the petitioner has not established that his achievements are commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim as a wine and spirits specialist and enologist, or being among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The submitted evidence is not indicative of a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59. 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and 
to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
(b)(6)
Page 26 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), ajfd , 345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: 
dismissed . 
The appeal is rejected. If the petition had been properly filed, the appeal would be